Defense’s Response to State’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike
1–5: Witnesses (Albert Sanchez, Chad Chaddington, Alexis Rylee, Kye Evans, Oliver Knight)
These witnesses are relevant to both the July 25 incident and the defense’s core argument of duress. Simply put, the Durras defense, where Jeff Pepstien is forcing Ash Li to traffic weapons, is wholly relevant. We are alleging Jeff Pepstien forced Ash Li to traffic weapons. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 405 (a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct. (b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
Contrary to the State’s claim, the defense has not admitted that these witnesses are "purely character-driven." Their testimony is intended to establish patterns of coercion and threats that directly support Ash Li’s legal defense of duress. As Your Honor previously stated regarding the limo: "It still has to be proven relevant in court or be objected to as irrelevant." That standard applies equally here. The State may object at trial, but striking these witnesses preemptively is premature and unwarranted.
Items 6–7: Investigative Materials and Arrest Records
These motions to produce have already been granted by Judge Theodore Lars. As of the current record, the State has until August 1st at 6:42 PM CST to produce:
- The arrest report for Jeff Pepstein related to the incident in question
- All arrest reports and investigations pertaining to the alleged acts of weaponized trafficking involving Jeff Pepstein.
Item 8: Limo-Related Evidence
The limo in question was brought un in the Interrogation transcripts multiple times. Regardless, this issue has also already been ruled on by Judge Lars, who acknowledged the existence of the limo and ordered the registered owner to be disclosed. As noted:
“We will acknowledge the existence of a limo and give the registered owner. However questions on it still have to be proven relevant in court or be objected to as irrelevant..”
This matter does not warrant further argument at this stage.
On the State’s Request for Sanctions:
The defense strongly objects to the State’s suggestion of sanctions or claims of vexatious litigation. The defense has filed motions in good faith and in accordance with court procedures, as we had discussed in our pre-meeting, and many of the disputed items have already been granted or acknowledged by the judge. These requests are not an attempt to "pass blame" or “docket dump of non relevant requests to be abusive, and a waste of the courts time” but are a legally supported effort to secure evidence essential to the Defendant’s constitutional right to present a full and fair defense, including the argument of duress and third-party culpability.
Conclusion:
The defense respectfully asks that the State’s motion to dismiss or strike the above items be denied, and that the court reaffirm the production deadlines and evidentiary rulings already made. The focus must remain on a complete and constitutionally sound evaluation of the facts, not premature suppression of witnesses or evidence.
It has become increasingly apparent that there is a fundamental disconnect between the prosecution, one that was not resolved during our previous pre-trial meeting. If the prosecution is unwilling or unprepared to produce constitutionally mandated, exculpatory evidence, then it raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the charges being pursued against Ash Li. The prosecution cannot reduce two weeks of alleged coerced weapons trafficking to merely the five-minute window of an arrest scene.
Accordingly, the defense respectfully requests a second pre-trial meeting to address this ongoing breakdown in communication.
